






► 

r> 

' A <\. *o * ,0 

^ * af/lTTpy _ *V 



^o 4 




0° \A .o’, 

* • o, ^c. ,0' i*’’ % ,> V 

•- %•/ A/ 

... / /%. -Ilpy ** v % 1 <WW‘* ./%- 

<*. 'o. .* A ^5, -'V. <* A O. '••»* A° ■» 

*, * c° .VkkI- o -A y-smZ.-' %r c° ‘ 



^ A 


V °* • — • A° 

V A*°- A • / 

<V *• /A '■ 

AA ♦ -K\ /h. ° ^r. A * 

■ V „ A .'. 'J ///l ° °b V ° 





“ aA • 

•* O 



tp-^aVo 0 ^ O■ * . , i 

* * v% C ‘ °' ^ aO 

. ^ ^ m 1 . A a* 


o 

°b " tPfWP^ ° A Vv V 
. „ „ / J? *\ '**<m£rS ^ - 

<\ '»•** ^ <>, ** *• * s A <, 

& V , «• ' * * <£*. 0 ^ <, ° * 0 * O * v ' * 

■* 7 “* r. _ ^r<\rv ** . *> .1 1 / i 



^ d' 
\p 
VP, S 



o 


O A °* 

+ ri * 'V'J \\VsNF* *> 

<0 > V * Y * O 

& *VS£V. ^ .A / 





A v\ 

> * <K 

+ rv - cC -, J ' 

A U <$* on® <. 

.. >\v* % *> v 

% *«. ,<A ,VSfi?V. A A 



’*' A 0 ' ^ 'o.’ 0 *,^ 

0^ > V v 

* & 4, * 

rf* ♦- 


V V 





«» ^ A *■ 

<0 tt* 1 . 

b “• 

°C» '^7-. •’ ,0° *V -0° 

0^ ^ 5 # • r ^ 

•• ^f.„ a^ »v ffi l S r- ^ a 

^ A o r!-|§:i ' 

* '°Mmw>' 


\ 


<. '»•** A' "o. a < 'o.i‘' jr a 



* ^ « 
V* 0 ^ 



w »>» < 


o V 



* ^ a 

- Cr 



' ° * " 1 * f ^ ^ * o „ o 9 ^ * • * ■» * 

v % »’•«-> c\ <<y ^ t-VL^ x> ♦ t • c\ a 

.,A A .A ^ .Wa’. A £ 











* V •? o 





- .0 ,>••'. 




C G vO 

• * <y y^K 

« <L V V r£. - -«|wn>j|s> ■> 

<V '«•»* ,G V \D *',V«* /S 

* \ A .*4*. % y 
•*. % * c >’^W- ° •<* 

# < o 

_ , %x _ ^ ° <1? ^ 

^ * ^vviwv^ ' sy * 

A* o> ' '\vV ; • <ijr o 

^ *•*•• y ... v *•■’• ■*>. 

v 

<* 


# C* ^rv 

4 4> °c> • ' 

• <S £» * -* ^yy, * 

<■> "o • * * G v \r> s* 'V .. 

4^ V # t 1 9 <$ 0 " <* * -<& V _ W / * . <$ 

j* "*L G u °o ^ 

► - &\\//A5> * *P 4 s 

^ (y 

^ '>WV «> o A ^ V^SgS^V «> o 

g %y ;is 3 ^*. \/ ;£ter-, yy ♦> v * ■ 





v O'* 1 ,*&■ 

♦ ^3 V 


C G vP -> 
r * *0, • 

4 V y - 



• 'b*. A^ - 1 

° ^rv C,v- * 

• ^ V 

• J>% * 

• •V Nf> •> 



v'\ 

C* ^ > 

r * 4? V # 

<. -o . * * \D 

yk v • •■' 4 * .6^ c®i°>» ^ 

«n * <r?/r77?^' G • o 

A 0 ^ ° A | O >• * A 0 . 

v ^ ^ V 7 flv^cO x/ ° ^ ^ /fSr > v ^ 

1 -. ■ ’ y yy ^ • ’ y y 

CV <9 r .JV.* V % r ’- o. ,9 V ,l # ^L% V 

^p Cj- «• ,;/ 4 . y- ;i . y<». A^' ♦ jA K» Ai.° ^ r°> 



o 




O 

2 

C) 








'°'*' A° 

% y c° -°o 

’. y.o< 



^ ^ . 


* <* v\ v 

y A? <v °. 

,y \? "o.yy ^ <y 

V r\ N n y A ^ 




y r **^. 'y 

^ y 0 « 



. ^ °^ ■ 

»*‘ y % * *'rr, • • .o 

♦ - y . • •»- c\ y . v^. "> 

yy -Mmm** ^ °i 

W : yy iwy.* y y . 

* *- '+o a o *-.%?•' y v* 7 ^''o 

<J> . , - <J». o » O . ^ V 




* y y .■■ 

<y '®*»* aG v 

-^ >v c or .yy a> v 

" "W : < ^te* r oi ? •' 

i 0 -^ '"04^: io, -tpmms: - 

o^i.,,.^ v*^\y °o * ; - yy o° \- 

O' s s # • ^ ^ \> „ t • o^. c> 9^ 5 S • # r* y 

o r^y * ‘'7K/!?, IrpK/^ • V f. jA A) ° ^ 


f% 




^ ,0 




\ >v * 

G ^ j c> 4 V ^ Q 

/ J? v y. ^ ^ ° 

* A <y 'o.y ,g v \5 ^..y A <^ 

.«.'»^ o v o ° N ° * ^o t . ^' * - 

° ^ °*' «• ^y//m<sf ■ - -*jt 

y .K bW/ o 0 ^ V-^- 0 . * 

v' y *''°', y^toL'-v 






^ V r 4 f * ®* O. aO > V' * , ‘°' C 














































LETTER 


OF 


ARCHBISHOP 



TO BISHOP LYNCH, OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 


New York, Aug. 23, 1861. 

Right Rev. Dear Sir :—I have received your letter of the 4th iost. How it reached, I 
can hardly conjecture. But it came to hand within about the usual period required for 
the transmission of mail matter between Charleston and New York during happier years, 
when all the States, North and South, found their meaning in the words “£ Pluribus 
Unum .” 

It must have run the blockade or dodged the pickets on hostile borders. I have read 
it with very deep interest, increased, if anything, by the perils of flood and field through 
which it must have passed. 

If even the innocent lightning of the North were permitted to carry a message into 
Southern latitudes, I would telegram you for permission to publish your calm and ju¬ 
dicious communication. As it is, however, my only chance of acknowledging it is 
through the Metropolitan Record, and without special permission publish your letter 
at the same time. In this way it may happen that, during the war or afterwards, my 
answer will come under your inspection. Yours is, in my judgment, one of the most 
temperate views of the present unhappy contest that has ever come under my notice 
from any son of South Carolina. It is not to be inferred, however, that because I ad¬ 
mire so much the calmness of its tone and temper, I therefore agree with all its argu¬ 
ments and speculations. 

You say I am “reported to have spoken strongly against the war policy of the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States, as fraught with much present suffering, and not calculated 
to obtain any real advantage.” Be assured that, previous to the outbreak of military 
violence, I was most ardently desirous of preserving peace and union ; but, since vio¬ 
lence, battle and bloodshed have occurred, I dare not hope for peace unless you can 
show me a foundation of rock or solid ground (but no quicksand basis) on which peace 
can be re-established. The nature of your ministry and mine necessarily implies that 
we should be the friends of peace. It was the special legacy of our Divine Master to 
his flock. And it would be strange if we, His appointed ministers, should be found in 
the ranks of its enemies. His words were, as we find in St. John, “Peace I leave ta 
you, my peace I give to you.” And yet St. Paul, in writing to the Christian converts 
of Rome, says : “If it be possible, as much as it is in you, have peace with all men.” 
I think this latter inspired quotation has at least a remote bearing on our present sad 
difficulties. 

Your explanations of the causes which have led to this war are entirely Southern in 
their premises and conclusions. But they are so vividly, and even plausibly stated, that 
I leave them uncontroverted. Your description of the evils resulting from the war is 
too correct to be gainsayed by me. Still, here we are in the midst of a sanguinary con¬ 
test, which, so far as I can see, like a hurricane on the ocean, must exhaust its violence 
before we can expect the return of national calm. There is no one who desires more 
ardently than I do the advent of that bright day on which we shall all be reunited in one 
great prosperous country. 

instead of controverting the correctness of your views in regard to the causes of our 
actual troubles, or determining where or on whom the responsibility of their existence 
rests, I shall beg leave to make my own statement from a point of view which is found 
in the general sentiment of the people North of Mason and Dixon’s Line. 

They say that, whatever may have been the anterior origin of this war, its immediate 
cause was the overt act of turning guns, put in place by the State of South Carolina, 
against a public military defence of the country at large, which of right belonged to all 
the States in common. Then it is thought, or at least stated, in these quarters, that the 
South for many years past would not be satisfied with less than a paramount control of 
the National Government. The South, it is well known, has been in a fretful mood for 
many years under Northern assaults, made upon her civil and domestic institutions. 
It would be, on my part, very uncandid to disguise the conviction that in this respect 




2 


the South has had much reason to complain. Leaving, however, opinions to fluctuate as 
they may, I will simply give you my own as to the primary causes of our present strife. 

You know that free speech and a free press are essential constituents of the first no¬ 
tions of Anglo-Saxon liberty. These were the shibboleth of its existence, prosperity 
and prospects. In the exercise of these peculiar privileges the North of this country 
has used its type and its tongue offensively against the South. Neither was the South 
backward in the work of retaliation on the same principle. But the Anglo-Saxon, 
whether of the South or of the North, would see the whole world set in a blaze rather than 
put limits to the freedom of the press or the unbridled license of the tongue, except 
when the laws interpose for the protection of public authority or individual rights of 
character and property. 

At the commencement of our National institution as an independent State, slavery, 
for instance, was found to exist, almost universally, in the North as well as in the South. 
The word itself was not used in any of the paragraphs found in the Magna Charta of 
our Government. The slave-trade from the Western Coast of Africa had been encour¬ 
aged by the subjects and the Government of Great Britain. The Government of Eng¬ 
land did not hesitate to affix its veto on some of the enactments made by the recognized 
local authorities of the Colonies for the diminution of the slave-trade. It would appear 
that from this trade, so abominable in its primary origin, there were certain emolu¬ 
ments accruing to the treasury of the mother country. And these emoluments were looked 
to as a source of reveuue, just as some countries in Europe, in their sovereign capacity, 
monopolize the largest portion of profits resulting from commerce in salt and tobacco. 

After the Revolution, slavery was gradually dispensed with in all the Northern States. 
Whether this was done from what would now appear a sense of humanity, or from 
motives of domestic or political lucre, it will be for you, as for me, a private right to 
determine, each according to his own opinion. But slavery was a social element, recog¬ 
nized in all the States at the period of the Revolution So far the changes that have 
supervened in reference to slavery has been all in the North, and the South is to-day as 
to this matter in statu quo just as she was at the period of the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence. The Northern States, in the exercise of their acknowledged right, repudiated 
slavery within their own borders. The Southern States, in their equal exercise of 
theirs, have done just the reverse. The North, unrepenting of many sins of its own, 
has exhibited great remorse for the sins of its neighbors. A portion of its inhabitants 
talk in a certain style, not only of this subject, but of a great many others about national 
sins which, according to its solution of Pagan ethics or of Christian duty, every human 
being is bound to correct. Yet the biggest sin in our day known to the North is not 
what occurs in its own immediate neighborhood or State, but the monster iniquity of 
the South, which, between you and me, and as the world goes, might have been per¬ 
mitted to manage its owr, affairs in its own way, so that its acts should be found either 
in harmony with, or not in violation of, the Constitution of the United States. 

I am an advocate for the sovereignty of every State in the Union within the limits re¬ 
cognized and approved of by its own representative authority when the Constitution 
was agreed upon. As a consequence I hold that South Carolina has no State right to 
interfere with the internal affairs of Massachusetts. And as a further consequence, that 
Massachusetts has no right to interfere with South Carolina, or its domestic and civil 
affairs, as one of the sovereign States of this now threatened Union. But the Constitu¬ 
tion having been adopted by the common consent of all the sovereign parties engaged in 
the frame-work and approval thereof, I maintain that no State has a right to secede, ex¬ 
cept in the manner provided for in the document itself. 

The revolt of the Colonies against the authority of Great Britain is another thing. If 
England had extended to these Colonies the common rights and privileges nominally 
secured by the British Constitution, we have high authority for believing that the Col¬ 
onies would not have gone, at least when they did, into rebellion. Indeed, it might be 
asserted and maintained that it was not the Americans, but the British Ministry and 
Government, that supplied legitimate reasons for the American Revolution.. 

In the present case it would be difficult by parity of reasoning, to justify the grounds 
on which the South have acted. t 

I think a few remarks will satisfy you of the correctness of this statement. You say 
that for many years the South has proclaimed its dissatisfaction, and announced its de 
termined purpose of Secession if certain complaints should not be attended to and their 
causes redressed ; that the South was always in earnest, and the North would never 
believe in their sincerity or their predictions. This may be so ; but it gives me an oc¬ 
casion to remark that the National Government, as such, had no special reason for the 
Secession of the South at this time more than there was ten or fifteen years ago. The 
Personal Liberty bill was unconstitutional in the few States which adopted It. New 
York was too wise and too patriotic to be caught in that trap. The so-called Personal 
Liberty bill was never adopted, so far as documents are evidence, either directly or in¬ 
directly, by the Government at Washington. Indeed I am not aware of any statute 
passed by the National authority which could give the South additional reasons for dis¬ 
content or complaint within the last ten or fifteen years. 

I have thus alluded to the unofficial causes for Southern resentment. Even in your 





8 


own letter the cause alleged is the election of the Chief Magistrate. This does not seem 
at all sufficient to warrant the course which the South has adopted. 

The Government originally agreed upon by all the States has lasted during a period 
of between seventy and eighty years. During this time its executive administration 
was enjoyed by the South for fifty-two y^ars. No Northern President has ever been 
re-elected. W ashington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson, have each dis¬ 
charged that office for a term of eight years. The conclusion is, then, that out of sev¬ 
enty or eighty years of the administration of our Government, fifty-two years have 
enured to our patriotic men of the South. This fact involves the potentialities and pow¬ 
ers of the Government as having been exercised by supremacy on the part of the South. 
The Navy, the Army, the incumbents of the Supreme Court, were not ignorant of or 
insensible to this fact. Now 1 put it to your candor to say whether, after such a history 
of the administration of our country, the South might not have tolerated the occupancy 
of the Presidential chair by the present incumbent, who, with his Northern predeces¬ 
sors in that office, could hardly expect to survive officially the ordinary four years of a 
Northern Supreme Magistrate ? 

You say that President Lincoln was elected by Black Republicans in the North. I 
am inclined to think that he was indirectly or negatively elected by Democrats North 
and South. The Black Republicans presented one candidate, and in order to defeat his 
election, the Democrats, North and South, presented three. If the latter had selected 
only one candidate, it is probable that the Black Republicans, as you call them, would 
have been found as minus hah entes. But when the Democrats distributed their votes, 
apparently with a view of rendering them inefficient, then, of course, the one man of 
choice was elected over the three candidates and competitors that had been placed in 
rivalship with t^ich other, and in the aggregate all against him alone. That he was con- 
' stitutionally elated under these circumstances is not denied either in the South or in the 
North. Then, if so elected, he is the Chief Magistrate of all the United States of Amer¬ 
ica, and, by his very oath of office, is bound by their own common consent to see that 
neither Maine, on the northeast, nor Texas, on the southwest, shall be permitted to 
overthrow the original National compact agreed upon in the Constitution of this Gov¬ 
ernment. If States shall be allowed, in face of that National Constitution, to kick over 
the traces of a common union, as agreed upon in the primitive days of our Government, 
then it is difficult to see why counties and townships and villages may not be at liberty 
to do the same thing just as often as the freak or fancy to do so may or shall have come 
upon them. 

There appears to be an idea in the South that the National Government and the people 
of the North are determined to conquer and subjugate them. This, I think, is a great 
mistake. First, in the sterner sense of the word “conquer,” it seems to me utterly im¬ 
possible ; and, if possible, I think it would be undesirable and injurious both to the 

J North and to the South. Unless I have been deceived by statements considered relia¬ 
ble, I would say that the mind of the North looks only to the purpose of bringing back 
the Seceded States to their organic condition —ante helium. 

There remains now scarcely a hope of peace, and the issue is apparently that the 
North must triumph on the field of Mars, or that the South shall prove itself victorious 
on the same bloody arena. But, after all, we must not despair in reference to a coming 
peace. The idea of an armistice, even for six months, is now utterly hopeless, but I 
think that the North, if the chance were presented, would be as willing to enter on terms 
of peace as the South itself. Still, I am bound to say, under deep conviction of the truth, 
that, of both sections unhappily launched on the swelling torrent of our domestic 
troubles, the North will be the latter to sink or swim in the sanguinary tide on which 
both are now afloat. 

You make mention of the Commissioners sent to Washington at an early period of 
the struggle, with kind, fair and liberal propositions, as you consider them, for the ar¬ 
rangement of the whole difficulty. Before reaching the point of settlement there would 
be found a vast amount of principle involved. Commissioners should have some recog¬ 
nized authority to warrant them in attempting to discharge the duties of their official 
office. Those of the South, in the circumstances, so far as I can see, had no authority 
whatever. 

The people of v»ur region (when I say people, of course I mean the voters, as com¬ 
monly understood in this country,) had scarcely been consulted on this vital question. 
Their Government, so called, was unrecognized by any civil principality on the face of 
the earth. Commissioners presented themselves before* the public servants of a Govern¬ 
ment universally recognized by all nations. The terms of these Southern Commission¬ 
ers were more of dictation than of petition. The Government at Washington had to 
choose one or another of two alternatives. The President and his Cabinet might have 
chosen the alternative of perjury, and acceded to the demands of those Commissioners, 
r 'or they might, as they surely did, decline every official intercourse with them. 

They chose the latter course. And now it only remains to see whether the Govern¬ 
ment is what it calls itself—the Government of the United States, or merely the Govern¬ 
ment of a fraction thereof—and that fraction measured oift to "them by Southern Com¬ 
missioners who could not show a legitimate title for the commission which they^rofessed 
to execute. 




4 


You think it hard and unnatural that foreigners and Catholics should be deluded into 
the service of the recognized National Government in order to be immolated in the front 
of battles and made food of for Southern powder. If this end were a deliberate policy 
in the North, I should scout and despise it. I admit and maintain that foreigners now i 
naturalized, whether Catholics or not, .ought to bear their relative burden in defence of 
the only country on those shores which they have recognized and which has recognized 
them, as citizens of the United States. 

Mr. Russell, the correspondent of the London Times, reports a conversation which he 
had with “a very intelligent Southern gentleman, formerly editor of a newspaper, 5 ' who 
stated, on behalf of the Confederacy—“Well, sir, when things are settled, we’ll just take 
the law into our own hands. Not a man shall have a vote unless he’s American born, 
and by degrees we’ll get rid of these men who disgrace us.” Mr. Russell inquired, 
’’Are not many of your regiments composed of Germans and Irish, of foreigners, in 
fact?” “Yes, sir.” 

This very “intelligent Southern gentleman, formerly editor of a newspaper,” is cer¬ 
tainly no true representative of the gentleman whom it was my good fortune and plea¬ 
sure to meet whenever I traveled in the South. But no matter, if the statement be true, 
it only shows that for Irish and foreigners in general, the South is nearly as unfriendly 
as the North can be. It proves further, that so far as the Irish are concerned, the heredi¬ 
tary calamities of their native land follow them up wherever they go, in one form or an¬ 
other. Here, and now, they are called upon by both sides to fight in the battles of the 
country ; and no matter who triumphs, they need not look for large expressions of 
thanks or gratitude from either side. Still, whether in peace or war, take them for all 
in all, they are as true to the country as if they had been born on its once free and hap¬ 
py soil. | 

Pardon me this digression, and let me return to the other sentiment touching the hope 
of a prospective peace. 

Tiiat word “peace” is becoming more or less familiar here in the North. In a, crisis 
like this it is not, in my opinion, expressive of a sound principle or a safe policy. Its 
meaning changes the basis and the issues of this melancholy war. If changed, it will 
be a war, not between the South and the North, geographically considered, but a war 
between the two great political parties that divide the country. Instead of this partisan 
hostility, wise patriots should rival each other in restoring or preserving the Union as 
one nation, its prosperity, and the protection and happiness of its entire people, in all 
their legitimate rights. But all this is to be judged of by others, and the opinion of any 
individual is of the smallest account. If a word of mine could have the slightest influ¬ 
ence, I would suggest that, even while the war is going on, their might be a Convention 
of the Seceded States, held within their own borders. It might be one representative ap¬ 
pointed from each of those States, by the Governor, to meet and examine the whole case 
as it now stands, and arrange and draw up a report of their grievances, or what they 
consider such, and report to their several Governors the result of their deliberations, and 
the conclusions at which they shall have arrived. 

The same process might be adopted in the States that have not seceded, and similar re¬ 
ports be made to their respective Governors. This would be only a preparatory measure 
for something more important. If a better feeling, or understanding, could be even par¬ 
tially arrived at, a future Convention of all the States by their representatives would 
have something to act upon. The difficulties might be investigated and provided for; 
the Constitution might be revised by general consent, and if the platform—sufficiently 
ample for 3,000,000 at the period when the Constitution was formed—is found to be 
neither of breadth or strength to support a population of 33,000,000, wise and patriotic 
men might suggest, according to the rules prescribed in the original document, the im¬ 
provements which .the actual condition of the country would seem to require. The Con¬ 
stitution itself, in its letter and spirit, is, no doubt, the same as it was when first framed ; 
but everything around has been undergoing a change for nearly eighty years. 

For a peace of that kind I would be a very sincere, if notan influential, advocate. But 
to expect that a peace will spring up by the advocacy of individuals in the midst of the 
din and clash of arms, amidst the mutually alienated feelings of the people, and the 
widening of the breach which has now separated them, would be, in my opinion, hoping 
against hope. Still, we must trust that the Almighty will overrule and direct the final 
issues of this lamentable contest. 

I had no intention to write so long a response to your kind letter. Enough, and per¬ 
haps more than enough, has been said, and it only remains for me to add that the Catho¬ 
lic faith and Catholic charity which unites us in the spiritual order shall remain unbroken 
by the booming of cannon along the lines that unfortunately separate a great and once 
prosperous community into two hostile portions, each arrayed in military strife against 
the other. I have the l|onor to remain, as ever, 3t 

Your obedient serv’t and Brother in Christ, 


Rt. Re 




Charleston. 


jJOHN, Archbishop of Nexo York. 




JOHN W. WOODS, PRINTER, 202 BALTIMORE-ST., BALT. 









































t 


4 O' 

CL' 


e » i * 





v « o 


V 


^ o * 

y • o ^ \ s • • A 

V> V * C* ,<V 

• <U* :JH&: 

.» .** ^ °?vv l v v vISEv <<? %. »' 

■ • • • '° • ‘ ‘ t? <» o'*- 'G, ■ 

.0 * L ' * * O <A 0 0 " 0 -» <*> ^ . L / • „ ^ 

3T 0 * c&/r??7-> * r ° «- *P • - ° 

a ^ j&u //yyi? ■* -A^ * *av\\W ^ ^ 





4 o» 

o ■->7^*,« o •%. 

^ -IV- ■?• 

c* 'i^jf/V. ^ A*- 

'i'v *ssw?!, W 

^ : f|W“ 



« V 




* oT o 

* > ’ ’ <y °t. - -»» 

V » c • • - *^- 

' *• s 



0*0 





^5 c i^ «k^M^'T° \9 v", 

1 <l" O *> \VOj-2^ • r\ 

<y °^ **»o* ,cr ^ 

•i&L j- smk- X 4 *° -;4>•:. '% y.- 

♦-♦ •-*«- V r'M#, W 

4° ... °* '* • * ‘ <, .<? *o * 6 



<L ' v/\ 

* ,v <*\ 



* . S 


4 O 

■CL f ^ o \V 

^ N~ ^ j> 5> >> V- 

-V <L^ O 

0^ s .. °+*' v ° ’ f 0 ' 

v »‘W*- V y •; 

P>< c"» 

■''V 




. V^v 
^ % 




\'*°'°’' <!° J V *.,7* 

•- \ ^ -:k'J'- y *• 

^ ^ ccC\ 5?^A,° ^ 

A v^ P 

* ** ^ -MEp* v> ^ 

• *’ *'VvT*' ,o*- 

, 0*0 >6 A , «■£► 

o ^ • <r c^ v .!r *P 'V »* -*'• c) 






^0 


„. "r G 

% V *p, c 

%. ^ or 

* n 0 ^ 

~ * i ■> * ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

^0 N «‘ Y 1 *.°' ' > Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

^ , : . ( Treatment Date: May 2010 

« PreservationTechnologies 

- V v/V ° A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

,V ° 111 Thomson Park Drive 

v Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

o*o. V V6 A ... 



• " 0 ' aV 

.'.A .''V- ts. A* ♦ 


4 * 

v. 

” 0 ^ £ 

\ 0 v\ - ^ 

^ * ^VIVVSN^ % * < 

V*’*"'’ *° V * 

^ -i? • > 

.4¥a-. ^ 



* • 


o . 





